Crazys

No, I did not misspell the title. It's meant to look that way, because it's reflective of who it represents.

As I have indicated many times on this site, I am not a huge Bush fan. I do not think he has accomplished his goals and he has expanded government rather than shrinking it. But I do not attack him personally--mostly because I think he's a good person.

Based on that last sentence, many readers will disregard this blog. They will say I am a Republican, a Bush-supporter, a right-wing puppet.

That reaction is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

I do not think Bush is a bad person. I do think he is a below-average President. Do I think Hillary Clinton is a bad person? Absolutely. Is that because I'm a Bush-lover? No. I just believe she is dishonest, disingenuous, and cares more about public opinion than reality, more about polls than progress, and more about herself than anyone else.

I also think Obama is a man of integrity. I would trust him to make decisions based on principal. I do not agree with most of his policy ideas, but I like him and trust him.

Last night on the radio I heard a caller say that she while she didn't "like him" she believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "better than Bush."

Wow.

If this woman lived in Iran, she would be subject to the following laws:

Article 18 of passport law, married women requires their husband's permission to apply for a passport.

Article 102 of Iran’s Constitution indicates: "Women who appear on streets and in public without the prescribed ‘Islamic Hejab’ will be condemned to 74 strokes of the lash.”

Article 300 of the Penal code states that the "Deyeh" of a Muslim woman is half of the "Deyeh" of a Muslim man. By law the life of a woman has half the value of a man in Islamic criminal law in Iran.

Article 105 of the Civil Code "In the relationship between a man and a woman, the man is responsible as head of the family." The Council of Guardians, has decreed, "A woman cannot leave her home without her husband's permission, even to attend her father's funeral".

Article 1117 of the Civil Code states that the husband may ban his wife from any technical profession that conflicts with family life or her character.

Want more? Women are executed by stoning for committing adultery. And, to top it off, it would be most unfortunate for this caller to live in Iran, where women who oppose the goverment are often improsined and submitted to sexual torture and dismemberment.

We cannot have honest conversations when people talk like this. To compare Bush to Ahmidenijad is ridiculous, to favor Ahmidenijad is, at best, sexist, racist, and treachorous.

Ahmidenjiad has said publicly that he wants to drive Israel into the ocean and eliminate Jewish people. His military supports attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Yet this woman--who is, sadly, just one of many individuals like this--publicly states that President Bush is worse than Ahmidenijad. This is astounding.

Unfortunately, the ignorant, hateful, uninformed public represent a huge portion of our voting population. There are lots of people in this country that would support that woman's statement. And, perhaps worse, the rational thinkers and politicians--on the left or right--will not condemn and discourage this type of behavior.

Extremism is the order of the day. It's popular in many circles to hate Bush and bash America. This poor caller did not even know why she felt that way. She just knew that's how she had been told to think.

"Study to show thyself worthy." Americans need to do less TV-watching and more fact-finding, because the media is no longer a reliable source for information. They present half-stories that corner people into conclusions and forward specific agendas. What we end-up with are "crazys" who actually believe, in their hearts, minds, and souls, that Ahmidenijad is "better than Bush."

Honest Dollars (part II)

Well, it's been an awful long time since I updated the blog. I have been earning my own "honest dollars" in a new job.

The last blog brought up the point about honesty and integrity in corporate America. How do we restore this? How can honor and business become unified?

White collar crime has to be punished with prison sentences. Not fines, not house arrest, not some of the "fake" prisons that treat you like a Super 8 Motel (other than not allowing you to leave, obviously).

More freedom requires more responsibility, and in order for us to maintain the strongest economy in the world, we need to maintain the highest level of economic freedom. We need to encourage growth and experimentation, reward success, and discourage dishonesty.

Capitalism is based on the free market--people making their own decisions about what to do with their money. This becomes implausible when companies are dishonest. Consumers simply do not have the time and resources to look into a company's claims. So when Corporate America lies, we have no choice but to believe them.

Enter the United States government.

No matter which party you support, you are supporting big business. Year-after-year the financial sector contributes huge dollars to both parties so they can maintain the status quo. Do not get tricked into believing that Republicans are the only supporters of big business. Just follow the money trail. The leading Democrat presidential candidates are being funded by big business as well.

The reality is that party has nothing to do with this issue. Dishonesty breaks down the system, and it needs to be punished more severely and more consistently. Jail time for white collar crime is the solution.

Honest Dollars

This entry is the first of a two-part series discussing the importance of responsible business.

What is it that makes America so great? Why did the first immigrants risk their lives to make the journey here, and why do people continue to flock to America?

There is a tendency for us to believe that America has a system of laws that allow individuals a greater sense of freedom. Because our nation was built by individuals seeking freedom from persecution and the ability to live without government making decisions about their personal lives, it is easy to romanticize the qualities of our United States of America. And to certain extent, this is all true. But as a result of the success and power this nation has attained, there are many places one can live and enjoy very similar personal freedoms without interference from the government and the general population.

A famous playwright best explained why people--even many of the very first settlers--have come and continue to come to this country. He said simply, "You have work."

I am a patriot. I adore the United States, and cherish the individual freedoms accorded by her laws and the Constitution. But we could not enjoy such a wonderful nation without wealth. Anyone who has traveled to a less developed country (LDC) can tell you that, by comparison, we have it pretty easy.

I do not mean to ignore the poverty in this country. There are many people who are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table, and live in a safe environment. But many of the worst places in this country would be among the best places in an LDC (less developed country).

Many people in LDC's live without adequate shelter, clothing, and food, whereas the vast majority of Americans--even those living in impoverished conditions--have the three basic needs adequately supplied. Most Americans who do not manage to cover their own basic needs are dealing with substance abuse, have been struck by a tragic disaster (such as Hurricane Katrina), or struggle with mental illness. The minimum wage in this country exceeds the average pay for labor in many places. This is why immigrants are willing to come to the United States and share a two-room house with ten other people.

Yes, we have it better than most places on the globe. We live in a relatively safe country where individual criminals are a much greater danger than warlords, government collapse, or genocide. But more than that, almost anyone willing to work can find a job in this country. Please note, I did not say a "good" job, but a job that pays minimum wage here would allow a family of four to live very comfortably in most LDC's.

It is somewhat popular to bash "capitalism" and "big business." But the truth is that the freedoms that have allowed us to achieve our wealth as a nation are just as important as the individual freedoms that have allowed us to express ourselves. What good is free speech if you can't eat?

To be sure, capitalism is a good thing. It is simply a system that allows good ideas to succeed freely, and allows individuals to earn what they are worth. However, the system fails without honesty and integrity, and the erosion of these values has led many Americans to cringe at the thought of "big business." A few bad apples have made the whole bunch look pretty rotten.

It's time to make "Corporate America" a term we adore. It's time for honest change.

Sore Losers

Switching modes for a moment, I feel compelled to write an entry about current events. While the primary goal of this blog is to point out necessary reforms to upgrade the quality of our government and improve the country as a whole, there is an issue that requires some attention.

Let me begin by saying this: I am not a staunch supporter of the Bush Administration. Since our current president took office, spending is through the roof, a war has been mismanaged, and the country has grown more deeply divided. While these problems are not all directly attributable to W., the buck stops with him.

The current debate, however, over whether or not to fund the troops in Iraq, is absolutely disgusting.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to support the attack in Iraq. The evidence that the U.N. and U.S. intelligence communities had pointed to a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program in Iraq, and the international community--mostly the U.S.--responded by invading the country and capturing (and eventually executing) Saddam Hussein.

War is a complicated thing, and, as the world has globalized, it has become increasingly more complicated. A decision to engage in military action have far-reaching affects, and when the most powerful country in the world is involved, these effects are bound to impact the entire planet.

So let's summarize our current situation:

1) Congress supported--overwhelmingly--military action in Iraq.
2) The war has been mismanaged, leading to an unstable and undesirable situation.
3) Popular support for the war has eroded in light of U.S. casualties.
4) Congress is now delaying funding for the troops, attempting to force the President into a withdrawl.

I have no desire to politicize this argument. Both parties have made mistakes in allowing things to arrive at their current state. But we cannot abandon a war just because the American people have grown tired of it. Here are a couple of facts that must be considered:

1) If we pull out of Iraq, we will leave chaos behing us. Warlords will capture the country, making it a foothold for terrorism and extremists, including the Iranian government.
2) We are at war, whether we are in Iraq or not. This is not a cold war, as was our standoff with the Soviet Union. The global terrorism community has attacked us on our soil and is constantly seeking ways and means to attack again.

September 11, 2001 may seem like a long time ago to some people. Grieving may have--for the most part--subsided, and America seems to be fully functioning again. But there are sure to be more threats on Americans, and leaving Iraq would surely provide a training and staging ground for an enemy that is currently at war with us.

So my question to anyone who favors a withdrawl is this: When would you support going back into Iraq? When we are attacked by terrorists who train there? When we discover that Iran is moving their own WMDs into Iraq to avoid detection from the U.N.? When genocide and torture become the only government?

Whether or not the decision to go to war in Iraq was right, the decision to leave now is wrong. This is not an opinion, this is not a political posturing, this is not conjecture. This is simple fact. Leaving Iraq now would be WRONG. It leaves America open to further attack, strengthens the Iranian position in the region, reinforces terrorism, and opens the door for genocide and tribal warfare. Might we save the lives of some American troops? Only in the short term, because it is a guarantee that if we leave that mess now, a bigger one will appear, and we will have to fight again.

Americans are competitive people. This has led to success in many arenas, but it is hurting us politically. The two parties are constantly looking for ways to win, instead looking for ways to do what is right. The American people themselves see us losing a war, and want to quit. They see American soldiers dying. They see poor leadership at the highest levels. But the fact remains that it will cost us more to leave than to stay, and just because it appears we are losing, that does not make it time to cut-and-run. Leaving now would result in chaos.

I beg both parties to stop the bickering and work together to find a solution. Many American people simply have not thought through the consequences of withdrawl. I hope, dear readers, that you have the common sense to see that pulling out does nothing positive for our country. Troops will return home only to be sent out again, and into much worse circumstances. Sometimes we have to let go of what we want emotionally and look at all the facts. This is one of those times.

Pulling out of Iraq is not honest change, it is a short-term response to a long-term problem that will weaken our national security and strengthen an enemy committed to killing not just our soldiers, but our children, our seniors, and our civilians. Like it or not--and I don't like it--we must stay until stability is achieved.

Simple Gifts

A few years ago, a friend of mine got involved with a campaign for a seat in the New Mexico State Congress. She knew the candidate well, and believed so firmly that he could accomplish wonderful things in politics that she sacrificed her time, energy, and resources to help get this young man elected. In fact, her entire circle of friends worked tirelessly to help this young candidate find his way into office.

Their efforts paid off. His no-nonsense, straightforward demeanor and honest answers to voters' questions helped him earn his place in the state legislature. Not long after he was elected, my friend called him to talk about how things were going and to offer her support for his re-election campaign. "I won't be running," he responded.

My friend was shocked, and told him that he simply had to run again, because of all the hard work that had gone into getting him elected in the first place and because the legislature needed more people of integrity. The young congressman spent the next several minutes explaining why he would never run for office again.

"For every one issue I believe is important, I have to vote for fifty things I do not believe in. The whole reason I got into politics was because I believed I could help clean things up, but I have to compromise everything I believe in to get anything done."

This problem is magnified several times over at the national level. Not only are most bills packed with special interest pork that bears little or no relation to the primary issue, but committees can add provisions to these bills after they have been voted on and signed into law by the President. In these cases, the democratic process is almost completely disregarded.

Special interests have more power than ever in Washington, D.C. As the federal government grows in size, spending, and complexity, it becomes easier to sneak provisions and policies into a system that has become far too vast and confusing for anyone to keep a watchful eye on its daily activities. This is, of course, exactly what politicians and special interests want, because this allows them to make deals and push their agendas through without anyone noticing.

The end result is that any time a meaningful piece of legislation is passed, several chunks of special interest payoffs are passed as well. To take one step forward, it seems we must take several steps back.

It used to be that judicial review could help limit this problem. Prior to and during the first years of FDR's presidency, the Supreme Court regularly struck down legislation that was overloaded with unnecessary provisions. The massive growth of the federal government, however, and the persistence of FDR's administration, made it impossible for the Supreme Court to perform the bulk of their duties hearing cases and still have the necessary time to undertake careful judicial review of the bills that are passed into law. Furthermore, several of these bills contain valid, important legislation, and to strike them down because of the special interest pork could be counterproductive.

The checks and balances so carefully laid out by the founders of this country have been struck down. The complexity and scope of the federal government has become so bloated that it is nearly impossible to effect honest change without conceding to dishonest, special interest pandering.

The solution is to demand that all bills are focused on a single issue. Instead of passing 20 or 30 new programs into law, narrow each new piece of proposed legislation down to a single issue. If this were accomplished, the American people and the media would be able to effectively keep track of who was voting for what and what the substance of each law was. Plans that require several different components would have to be voted on as several different bills, forcing the parties to come together to find solutions instead of trading special interest payoffs in order push their own agendas through. More transparency for the American people would allow them to see what their elected officials are really accomplishing and supporting.

Would this require more effort on the part of our lawmakers? You bet. Would this slow the system down and limit its ability to pass more laws? Absolutely. Could this make it more difficult to effect change? Yes, but that means it is also more difficult to pass laws that hurt our system. With single-issue bills, politicians could be held accountable for their every vote. Campaigns could include a clear list of a candidate's voting record instead of the misrepresentations that are currently produced by both incumbents and challengers.

It is time to slow down the federal government. It is time to make our elected officials take responsibility for the bills they vote for. It is time for honest change.

Home Rights

This is the second entry of a two-part series calling for the decentralization of our government.

It is wonderful to see America come together in times of crisis. Despite our vast differences as citizens of the most diverse nation on the planet, Americans support one another almost unconditionally when catastrophe strikes. Dating back to the Revolutionary War, Americans have always bound together in moments of extremity in order to protect one another's freedom. Most recently, the tragedy of 9/11 demonstrated the selfless patriotism that still burns deeply in Americans' hearts as millions of dollars in charity flooded to victims, Congress came together to search for solutions, and citizens abandoned their careers to join the military and protect our country from future attacks.

There is, however, an unfortunate bi-product of these periods. The federal government--and rightfully so--becomes the focal point of the nation as Americans look for leadership from the highest levels. New laws, policies, and agencies are instituted to deal with the crisis, and the citizenry happily accepts the inconveniences and costs associated with the emergency response. The problem has been that once stability is restored, the federal government has not relinquished the powers it seized to deal with the crisis.

The most obvious example of this came during the Great Depression. As discussed in a previous entry, FDR undertook a massive centralization of power during his presidency. His aim was to restore hope to the American people and mend the wounds of having more than a quarter of the country's workforce unemployed. Even with all of the agencies and programs FDR ushered into existence, the real catalyst for rebuilding the economy was World War II. Unfortunately, when the war was over and the economy booming, we forgot to shut down or streamline the policies and agencies that came into being in order to lead us out of the Great Depression.

Fast forward to 2007. Many crises and catastrophes later, the federal government has continued to centralize power and expand its role in the economy, education, and individual rights. The result is that each citizen's role in governance is diminished.

If you live in a town of 50,000 people, your vote is very powerful. A few voters and activists can turn the tide of an entire issue. The strength of that vote is diminished when issues go county-wide, because now there may be 200,000 voters. The dillution continues at the state level, where a single vote is now just a fraction of a millionth of the constituency. Finally, at the federal level, it is easy for a voter to feel that his or her vote has little impact.

Because the federal government has grown so substantially in size and strength over the last 80 years, Americans have grown increasingly disinterested in politics. As the state and local governments lose their hold over once-local issues such as education, voters feel a disconnect from issues. Furthermore, the grandiose promises of what is perceived to be an invincible institution (the U.S. government) trick citizens into believing that problems can and should be solved with national policies that sweep over the states, bringing prosperity, wisdom, and happiness to every citizen.

It is hard to feel responsible for America's problems as a single voter. It is hard to believe that you can impact an issue when even the federal government fails to achieve success in many of its endeavors. And so apathy sets in--a very natural and understandable response to our current political state.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
I strongly encourage each reader to take the few minutes required to read the U.S. Constitution. Even if you cannot read the whole thing (it is very short), it is certainly worth one's time to take a look at article one, which actually lays out the powers of the federal government.

Combining the words of the Tenth Amendment with the text of the Constitution, one can clearly see how far beyond its charge the federal government has gone. There is not one word concerning public education in the Constitution. What is amazing, however, is how well the framers defined the role of the federal government. Two hundred years later, the powers listed in Article I, section viii of the historic document are still the most vital functions of the federal government, and should be among its only powers.

The states have crippled. Their share of taxes is relatively small, and their control over key issues--most importantly education--has diminshed substantially. Controls over agriculture, intrastate business, and law enformcement have been seized by the federal government, which threatens to pull its infrastructure funding from states if they do not pass certain laws.

Nearly every issue critical to everday life is now run by the few individuals who walk the halls of buildings located in the only part of the country that does not fall under state law (Washington, D.C.).

It is time to streamline the federal government and force it to focus on its most important duties, most of which concern national security. It is time to give the voter back some measure of significance by making local politics relevant again. It is time for honest change.

Traveling Salespeople

This entry is the first of a two-part series calling for the decentralization of our government.

You hang up on them almost every night when they call. The dreaded knock on the door is even worse. Spam blockers, shredding machines, mute buttons...we invest a lot of energy in avoiding advertisements and promotions that we find to be valueless.

What has government done for you lately? Has it improved your child's education? Has it made it easier for you to file and pay your taxes? You may be enjoying cuts now, but will the Bush tax changes last? Is Congress getting you a raise, improving your property value, lowering your gas bills, or making your neighborhood safer?

We should all be grateful for the protection of our military and security forces. We should applaud the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the DEA, and the other alphabet agencies that help keep America safe. Government can do a great job with national security.

But for handling the problems we seem to encounter everyday, our Washington, D.C. politicians just are not getting it done.

Politics has been reduced to a group of traveling salespeople. It is not about substance anymore, because the system is not being substantially changed. Other than national security and maybe cutting your taxes, what has the government done for you?

Americans' time is valuable. We do not vote enough because we do not feel it is worth our time. So little is accomplished on Capitol Hill. We are frustrated. And the result is that many of us have started to respond by tuning it out. The only way politicians can get people to the polls is to fire them up with single-issue rhetoric. "Get out of Iraq." Where was that before we went over? "Improve our schools." We're spending more now than ever before. "Save our unborn children." The Supreme Court has the decision-making power on this issue. "Health care for all." Our government already spends more per capita on health care than Canada, where they have a public system with universal coverage.

Propaganda, mud-slinging, personal attacks, rhetorical policies...this is all our national politicians offer us.

As noted earlier, however, we do have a wonderful military and security system. The infrastructure in this country is nothing short of amazing. There are brilliant minds throughout the State Department.

These are the items that require the focus of the federal government. Less talking and selling, and more results. Shifting more power to state and local governments would help accomplish this. We need fewer politicians who know little of our problems in our homes and cities, and more of the quiet, hard-working county clerk type of people in our system. More politicians who can relate to you and your issues in Scranton, PA or Peoria, IL. And we need less traveling salespeople that win elections by out advertising the competition, promising results that have not been delivered in over 70 years of big federal government.

Aborting the "Pro's"

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in American politics. The subjects of an individual's right to choose and an unborn child's right to live are certainly hot-button issues, but by focusing strictly on Roe v. Wade and the bumper-sticker soundbytes our politicians offer, we are forgetting that there is much more to the issue than just "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice."

Like so many other issues in American politics, abortion has become a rallying cry for parties and candidates. Alan Keyes has made a career out of his stance on the issue. Religion and loyalty to God are often brought into the discussion. Extremists on both sides have gone too far, with some pro-life fanatics bombing clinics and some pro-choice supporters claiming that late-pregnancy terminations--where the baby could survive outside of the womb--should be legal. The vicious attacks on both sides have turned the issue into an argument.

What if we shifted the conversation to another part of the issue?

Abortion is a women's issue because the actual process concerns women. But it also has a great deal to do with men, because without men, there would be no pregnancy. Furthermore, the issue of the sanctity and value of life concerns all of us. But in the mission of both sides to see abortion rights either eliminated or expanded, the role of men in the issue has been greatly diminished.

The real problem is the growth of unwanted pregnancy in this country. Almost no one would say that abortion, in and of itself, is a good thing. No matter which side of the issue you fall on, putting a woman through that experience is not something to be proud of and taking a life--whether it is considered a fetus or an unborn child--is not something to be taken lightly. Of the several women I know who have had abortions and discussed it with me, none have expressed any joy in the event or its aftermath.

I am going to lay a few things on the table that may seem to upset some people, but it is in the spirit of progress and honest conversation that I do so.

At the root of this issue is a woman's desire to have consequence-free sex--to know that regardless of the outcome of intercourse, she will not have to bear a child. And why shouldn't women want this? Don't men have the privilege of knowing that they will not have to carry a child?

This is the concept I would like to challenge. I believe that if we hold the men in this country responsible for their actions, unwanted pregnancies will decline considerably. As it stands now, men not only have the luxury of knowing they will not have to carry a child, but also that they will not have to deal with having an abortion. For irresponsible men everywhere, abortion is a safety net. If their partner becomes pregnant, they can say they do not want the baby and that she should have an abortion. Even if the woman does not want to terminate the pregnancy, the man has absolved himself (in his mind) from any responsibility by saying that if it were his decision, he would end the pregnancy.

Many women choose to have the baby, even in extreme circumstances. There is an undeniable emotional connection between mother and child, and this exists even before birth. Abortion is not an easy choice. But for men, it is much simpler to say, "I don't want to have anything to do with that baby," and just run from the issue.

A policy that takes a two-pronged approach to resolving this disparity is in order. First, we need a law that makes men financially responsible for the pregnancy. Even if the pregnancy is unwanted, men cannot deny that they had no choice in the matter (unless there is a case of rape or deception). By engaging in sexual intercourse, you are participating in an activity where nature's intended outcome is reproduction. Many men will cry wolf, saying that they used contraception and it is not their fault, but they cannot escape the fact that they chose to have sex and that includes the possibility--no matter what birth control device is used--of pregnancy. For this reason, men can and should be held responsible for their actions, and should be held financially responsible for supporting the pregnancy (yes, that means supporting the woman carrying the child) and the baby.

The second piece of the puzzle is time. Women not only have to sacrifice time during the pregnancy (especially in the final month), but obviously once a child is born there is whole new level of responsibility. Men can never be held to the same standard, but the law can help equalize the situation. Fathers should be held responsible--by law and with the threat of imprisonment--for a certain number of care hours once a child is born.

Men denying responsibility for pregnancies would be submitted to paternity testing. If there is a positive match, then the law becomes effective and the financial and time responsibilities kick-in. Now you have a situation where both parties--men and women--must carefully consider the ramifications of intercourse. Young couples who have not thought things through will be put in tough circumstances where both partners' lives are forever altered by pregnancies.

Men will never be held to the same standard as women on this issue, because they cannot carry children. But the law can demand a more equal commitment. It is time we forced the men in this country to take this issue more seriously.

Government Savings

This is the final entry in the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

As noted in the previous entry, it is always important to consider the reason for taxes. Unless the goal is continue our movement towards a quasi-socialist European model (which would require rewriting the Constitution), the motive behind taxation must be reexamined.

Income tax is a relatively new concept. While it was implemented for a brief period during the civil war, the federal income tax did not become permanent until the 20th century. As America grew, so did the needs of her government, and the introduction of the tax to build a stout military and continue upgrading infrastructure was probably a good idea. But somewhere along the way, taxes became an excuse for government to overspend.

Each of the policies laid out in the previous entries on taxation include very specific goals. The flat income tax is earmarked primarily for military, education, and infrastructure needs. The charity tax puts money in the hands of difference-makers and encourages Americans to take care of one another. The incentive tax encourages responsible business practices. Cutting capital gains encourages saving and investing. And other policies, such as a charity tax on estates, would discourage inherited wealth and push each generation to make its mark.

What are the roots of our current system? How did over-taxation and overspending take hold in America?

During the Great Depression, FDR implemented a series of government-inflating policies called "The New Deal." Designed to save the U.S. economy from further disaster, a whole new batch of regulatory agencies were introduced. The goal of these new policies and bureaucracies was to provide relief, recovery, and reform.

This was a critical moment in our nation's history. FDR's presidency redefined the parties, turning the Democratic Party into a pro-government, neo-socialist reform party and transforming the Republican Party into a conservative watch-dog focused on a strong dollar, sturdy economy, and a balanced budget. Interestingly enough, these issues used to be the backbone of the democrats.

The proof of this change is found in an address FDR gave while he was the governor of New York. It demonstrates that FDR was not an idealist or a constitutionalist, but rather a pragmatist. Once in office, he changed his viewpoints entirely in a desperate attempt to save America from an economic wasteland. Here is the link to the address: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/fdr_address.htm

The goal of the programs was to restore hope and prosperity to Americans, and FDR is widely credited with achieving this vision. I believe that he did, in some measure, boost the spirit of Americans enough to help them pick themselves up and start to rebuild our nation. Remember, the Great Depression saw unemployment as high as 25%--just a few years ago Bush was ripped for having a rate just above 6%.

The Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the New Deal, using judicial review to enforce the Constitution. The court believed that FDR's new agencies had gone well beyond the scope of the federal government's rights. The shear volume of programs, however, and their rising popularity, forced the court to abandon their strict judicial review by the time the second "New Deal" laws were enacted, and the federal government had begun its metamorphosis into the juggernaut it has become.

FDR was a great leader, and did help restore hope. But unemployment did not drop below 8% until 1942, when the U.S. had jumped into World War II. So the effectiveness of his policies--which were implemented in the early 1930's, must be questioned. While they had a great psychological effect on the American people, they failed to achieve their outright economic goals.

Unfortunately, the bureaucrats saw their opportunity to take hold of the government. Using FDR's popularity as a President (which had grown largely because of his success in WWII), politicians called for the continuance of many programs that seemed to contradict the grass roots principles FDR spoke about in 1930 when he was still the governor of New York. The result was and is a mass of self-perpetuating agencies that suck funding and produce little. LBJ took these ideas of mass bureaucracy and applied them to social issues, and by the end of his presidency we were doomed to our current situation: well over 60% of government spending is wrapped-up in inflexible, permanent programs and agencies. Sadly, no matter who takes office in 2008, things are likely to get worse, as these programs continue to grow despite their record of failure.

The irony in all this is that FDR knew, in 1930, that America would be headed for the quagmire we find ourselves in unless the federal government's growth was curbed.

The point is that spending begets spending, and taxing begets taxing, unless these policies has specific reform goals. FDR needed to give people hope, and the "New Deal" may have accomplished that, but most of its entangling laws should have been stricken down after World War II, when balance had been restored to the American economy. Instead, the unnecessary programs burgeoned, and LBJ tacked-on a litany of social policies that further bloated the government.

A key component in any tax plan must be to balance the budget and pay down the debt. Laws, and perhaps even an amendment to the Constitution, are required to achieve this goal. Extra dollars are not an excuse to start more programs. The government should have a surplus of funds available for emergencies--such as the Great Depression--to provide TEMPORARY relief. We must force our government to exercise fiscal restraint and repay the debt.

Let's turn that 60%-plus figure around. Let's come together and strike down the under-performing, over-spending programs, and allow the government to have control over 60-plus% of their funds instead just the the leftovers. Let's pay down the debt and build a surplus for emergencies. Taxes are not an excuse to spend. This is the honest change we need.

Business Class

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Taxing business is a tricky issue. In our quasi-capitalist economy, businesses look at taxes the way they look at any other expense. What this means is that the cost of taxes is passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices and passed along to employees in the form of lower wages. So before issuing taxes on business, it is important for government to consider the goal of the taxes. If generating more tax revenue is the goal, then taxing business can often result in simply passing a larger tax burden onto the citizens.

There are other goals, however, that do justify taxing businesses. While payroll taxes are a bad idea--they just decrease wages for workers--other types of taxation can be used to encourage businesses to behave responsibly.

In a market economy, it is vital for large businesses to achieve results. Turning a profit increases the price of shares for a company, and this leads to more growth. Success begets success. For this reason, it is essential that businesses keep their expenses as low as possible, whatever those expenses may be.

A small tax of 8% on a company's cash flow would be the basis of the "Incentive Tax." The goal of this levy would be to encourage businesses to behave more responsibly.

It is important to note that this tax is on a company's cash flow, and not its net profit. Many businesses maintain positive cash flow and report a loss to the IRS. The incentive tax could not be side-stepped this way.

The incentive tax would decrease for every benchmark a business met. For example, an environmentally responsible business might see a 3% drop in the incentive tax rate. A business that stayed out of the court system (which is a big expense for taxpayers) could receive a 2% reduction, and so on.

The effect of this tax would be to push CEOs, CFOs, and boards of directors to meet these standards and avoid paying the tax. The outcome would be an immediate profit increase, leading to a rise in share prices. The market would demand that incentives were met.

One of the most important guidelines in an incentive tax would be the "Fair Pay" benchmark. A huge problem we face in our country today is the rise in household income for the top 20% of earners and relatively stagnant income growth for everyone else. The widening gap between the rich and the poor not only threatens productivity and long-term growth, it is also wiping out the middle class.

What is causing the problem? The overvaluing of executives has driven compensation packages for top-tier employees through the roof. While the market is dictating these astoundingly high pay increases, it is ignoring the overall effect on the work force and the future of our economy.

Let me offer an example. A friend of mine works in sales for a large energy broker. Recently he was working on a huge project, and partnered with an independent consultant. After two years of research, negotiation, and hard work, they closed a deal worth almost $7 million that would turn an enormous profit. The consultant--who did no more or less than my friend--received a check for well over $700,000. What was the reward for my friend? A $500 gift certificate to the local country club. One man receives a check that could fund his retirement, while the other gets a few rounds of golf.

It is hard to blame the decision-makers for these unbalanced policies--our short-sighted market economy dictates that businesses are required to produce higher profits now, not in five years. But because this attitude has taken hold in corporate America, the average worker has been short-changed. Productivity is dropping while hours increase. The incentive for the average worker to excel is decreasing. While inflation continues to rise as CEOs spend their bloated paychecks, the workforce becomes less and less inspired to succeed.

This must stop. Promotion from within must increase, and workers need to be rewarded for exceptional service to a company. Since the market is failing to establish this itself, the Incentive Tax would force a board of directors to choose between hiring a big-name CEO (to make a splash in the market), resulting in an immediate reduction in cash flow from the Incentive Tax, or promoting from within to improve worker morale and save 3% annually. An incentive that promoted higher pay for better performance at all levels of a company would work wonders for America and would help restore a middle class.

The bulk of the revenue generated by the incentive tax would be used for government to maintain standards of honesty and integrity in business. Corporations choosing to side-step ethics and walk the thin line of the law would face constant government oversight, while companies committed to honest practices that benefit everyone (not just the board of directors) would pay less in taxes and operate more freely.

White collar crime penalties would increase. More prison time and higher fines would result from dishonest business practices. A focus on punishing the individual, rather than the company, would be the backbone of the policy. Capitalism cannot excel without honesty.

Good behavior needs to be rewarded. Bad behavior needs to be discouraged. America needs to get back to building stronger, smarter, more loyal, long-term thinking corporations. Taxes on business should encourage this, instead of just passing higher costs along to consumers.

Giving Results

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

It is clear that the ideas presented in the previous entries will require huge cuts in government spending. Many people, including government employees, have become dependent on these programs, and cutting them will certainly put some Americans in a difficult position.

Fortunately, there is a community in America that is dedicated to helping people in need, and, unlike the government, they achieve consistent results.

I'm talking about our charitable institutions. Americans give huge dollar amounts to charity every year, and these smart, competitive organizations stretch the contributions they receive to the limit. How do I know? I spent two years working as the Director of Development (fundraising manager) of a non-profit charity.

Charities do not work like government. They understand how difficult it is for people to give and appreciate every dollar they receive. Donors are an intelligent group as well, only contributing to the best-run charities that produce consistent results. In short, the charitable giving industry has a client/company relationship that closely resembles that of businesses. In the case of non-profits, the product you are offering a donor is the fulfillment of their desire to help others and improve their communities, their country, and the world. Producing better results and making donations go further naturally leads to receiving more donations, just like an effectively run business that satisfies its clients tends to do more business.

This is a distinctly different model from government entitlement programs. Rather than investigating best practices and thoroughly examining each case, government gives money on the basis of predetermined benchmarks. What this means is that if an individual meets the qualifications laid out in the law, he or she is entitled to receive benefits. Furthermore, government does not have a responsibility to its donors, because taxpayers must fund the government. By its very nature, it is an inefficient institution. The result is poorly run programs that fail to produce results.

I have also worked at a homeless shelter. During my time there, dozens of homeless individuals came into the shelter to take advantage of its functions, which included a place to shower, free meals, reception services (yes, we even received mail and took phone messages for homeless individuals), public transportation fare, food stamps, and benefit applications.

At the risk of sounding callous, I was amazed at how few of these homeless individuals were taking active steps to find gainful employment or housing. My second day there, I approached a woman who had been working there for several years and asked her about this. She explained that about 1-in-30 people coming through their doors were making use of the intended function of the shelter, which was to help these individuals get back to work and find homes. My experience at the shelter confirmed her estimation.

This is not efficient. The cost of running the shelter must have been extremely high. There were at least five full-time employees in a large office space in an area where real estate prices are among the highest per square foot in the nation. The food and bus tokens alone must have totaled at least $1000 per day. No charity in the country could operate so poorly (a 1-in-30 success rate) and continue to receive donations.

Contrast this performance with that of "Habitat for Humanity," a well-known charity committed to building shelter for those in need. This organization has constructed over 200,000 homes and shelters, and finishes a new shelter every 24 minutes. Every 24 minutes! By June of 2006, Habitat had put 100 families who had been devastated by Hurricane Katrina into new homes. By mid-summer of 2007, they project that 1,000 new residences will have been constructed for the hurricane victims. And these are not shacks or government projects, either. I encourage readers to visit their website, www.habitat.org, and see what real charity looks like.

And that's not all. Habitat also does vast amounts of work abroad. Over the next 18 months, they expect to build 10,000 homes for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Not only does this save lives and help people start over, it also aids in improving the image of the United States around the world.

Like all charitable organizations, Habitat publishes an annual report that the public can read (this is where all this information comes from). All non-profits are transparent, allowing potential donors to see the organization's record of success. The government frequently fails to research the success of its own programs, much less offering the public an opportunity to look at its records and determine whether or not they wish to continue funding the waste.

Because a charity's income is tied to its performance, efficiency and effectiveness are vital to operations. Because the government's income is guaranteed, efficiency and effectiveness are almost unnecessary.

On top of the 20% income tax proposed in previous entries, Americans should be asked to give to charity. Requiring this by law would flood money into our charitable organizations, and this is sure to be more effective than any government program. A sliding scale based on total income level would look like this:

Income (in thousands of dollars); (Percentage Tax)
$25-50 (5%)
50-75 (6%)
75-100 (7%)
100-200 (8%)
200+ (10%)

This scale does not mean that an individual making $250,000 per year must give $25,000 (10%) to charity. What it means is that the first $25K of income is charity tax free, the next $25K is taxed at 5% (for a total of $1250), the next $25K at 6% ($1500), and so on. So, using the above example, an individual earning $250K would pay a total of $17,500 ($1250 + 1500 + 1750 + 8000 + 5000) in charity tax. That amounts to only 7% of the $250K in total income.

Along with the new charity tax, fierce penalties for charity fraud would be written into law. Individuals who are caught trying to beat the system would be fined and jailed.

The end result would be amazing. Not only would charities help the Americans who need help, but instead of a government program throwing money at a problem it will be Americans helping Americans (and foreigners). Anyone who has ever been involved in charity work knows what a special relationship this is, and how beneficial it is for all parties involved.

The influx of funding to charities would also boost the industry, opening new possibilities for philanthropy and allowing anyone with a good idea on how to help people make it a reality. Charities would continue to strive for excellence and compete for dollars, and Americans could choose how their contribution improved their community, country, or the world.

American taxpayers deserve a good return on their investment. Let charities and fellow Americans take care of each other, and let the government take care of funding things like infrastructure, military and security, and public education. This is the kind of honest change we need.

Investing Incentive

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Reading the ideas on tax reform in the previous might have accountants and tax attorneys crying "foul." But there is no cause for concern.

The government has done some things well when it comes to the tax code. Because the wealthy financial sector has so much pull in Washington, several good ideas have made their way into the tax code regarding passive and portfolio income. These incentives encourage Americans to invest in certain ventures that would otherwise be too risky or unprofitable. Depreciation, depletion, intangible drilling costs, IRAs, Keogh Plans, TICs--there is a vast list of investment activities and incentives that avoid absurd taxation.

The problem is that most Americans cannot afford and/or do not understand the benefits of these investments. Having a "money" curriculum in our public schools, beginning in elementary school and lasting through high school, will help our citizens understand the advantages and importance of saving and investing. But what about the cost?

As it stands now, the average American pays so much in fees and taxes that investing--while still crucial to one's financial well-being and retirement--does not feel like it is worth the effort. Furthermore, those who do invest regularly tend to do so in very limited ways and for very specific things, such as retirement accounts, college funds, or saving for a down payment on a home. Very few Americans have a steady stream of passive income. This needs to change.

One of the keys to having more time to spend with family and take care of the most important things in life is having the financial resources to do so. As is demonstrated in recent books such as "The Two Income Trap," our current system makes it very difficult to live in a good neighborhood with decent schools unless both parents have a job. Combine this fact with the shorter vacations and longer hours our country works, and there is little time left for family.

A great way to start fixing this problem is to make the first $25,000 of passive and portfolio income tax free. This means that a couple could earn up to $50,000 in passive income without paying a penny in taxes. Maintaining current tax incentive laws along with this new deduction would result in an explosion of investment by Americans, and would create a whole new investment industry for the low-income investor.

Taking this a step further, the capital gains tax would be reduced to a 10% for short-term (12 month) and 5% for long-term (more than 1 year). Again, no taxes would be paid until that $25K threshold is exceeded. Passive income would be taxed at the 20% flat rate, but the $25K tax-free rule would be combined with all the current deductions for passive income, making it easy to earn extremely high returns while paying little or nothing in taxes. These new policies would allow Americans earning a modest income to start putting their money to work instead of working so hard for their money.

The economic benefits of this plan would be extensive. More investing would allow companies to be more creative and take more risks. Finding the necessary funding to translate good ideas into profitable ventures would be easier. Middle and lower-middle class Americans could generate helpful, steady streams of income. The market surges would bring in vast amounts of foreign capital, strengthening the dollar and keeping more and better jobs in the United States. And, after a few years of lean tax revenues, the growth in the economy would actually create a surplus and allow us to pay down the national debt.

We need to become a country of long-term thinkers. In today's market economy, long-term thinking also brings about short-term results. How? Making investing more attractive will flood money into the markets, giving companies more money to hire and pay workers, research new technologies to create new jobs and new industries, and boosting profit-sharing. If we educate our citizens properly and "incentivize" investing, Americans will learn to leverage their individual capital for gain while at the same time pouring money into the companies and entrepreneurs that keep America's economy ahead of its competitors.

The flip-side of this policy is disastrous. If we continue to make investing so complicated and expensive--keeping it out of the reach of middle-class America--we are in danger of losing our status as the world's preeminent economic power and losing our valuable technology and financial sector jobs to foreign markets.

So why haven't we done this yet? Because elections are based largely on unemployment rates, and incumbent politicians know they can earn votes by mortgaging our future to create temporary, superficial job-growth. Also, the wealthy financial sector, lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians already know the loopholes of the system, so there is no need for them to change it--even though these proposed changes would benefit them as well.

Let's learn to think long-term and support honest change in our tax system.

Tax Returns

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Taxes themselves are not the problem. When the colonists revolted against the British Empire, they were not opposed to the idea of paying taxes. They were opposed to the idea of paying taxes without getting anything in return.

Americans have always been relatively smart with their money. This is because we live in a quasi-capitalist society that rewards hard work and entrepreneurship. I do not believe the frustrations many feel about taxes are simply because we do not want to pay taxes. I think Americans see the value in things like a strong military, public education, and infrastructure.

The real problem is that we are not getting a good return on our investment.

Despite the huge amounts of money flowing into the federal government, our education system is a mess, we have too many extraneous laws and government institutions, and we have a tax code that is overly-complicated and unfair.

Instead of squabbling over tax-bracket percentages, marriage penalties or deductions, and the moratorium on the estate tax, we need to shift the conversation to wholesale reform of the tax code.

I heard a great interview with a U.S. Postal Service worker on the radio the other day. He was explaining why the price of stamps is increasing again. "We have too many supervisors," he said. "There are too many people who are not doing anything and are getting paid."

Government institutions have the luxury of knowing that they have no competition. The USPS (United States Postal Service) will exist for as long as the laws of the nation support its existence, regardless of how poorly it is run. Inefficiency is actually rewarded, because in most government programs, your budget is based on how much you spend. This means that finishing the year under budget often means that your budget is cut. Conversely, a government organization that consistently fails to meet budget expectations will retain a high budget or even win a budget increase.

Does this sound like an efficient system? No wonder Americans do not feel like they are getting a good return on their investment in the federal government.

The solution is clear. If we lower tax rates to a reasonable level for all of our citizens, we will see long-term growth, and force government to cut its waste. Over the period of a decade, federal tax revenue will actually increase, allowing the government pay down our ridiculous national debt, which is now at about $8.85 trillion and continues to balloon.

As it currently stands, the tax system's loopholes allow two individuals with the same income to pay substantially different amounts in taxes. This is not fair, and I believe it is unconstitutional. Why? Because our freedom to spend our money as we choose is one of our basic rights as Americans. If John and Sally both make $100, and Sally has to pay $30 in taxes while John's creative accountant structures his finances so that he only has to pay $5 in taxes, this is unfair.

All human beings require the three basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. We can assume that a portion of everyone's income goes to fulfilling these needs. The remainder of income is left to spend on choices--things like recreation, investments, charity, or upgrades to the basic needs. Because John and Sally live in the same country under the same laws, we will also assume that they receive the same freedoms and protections from these laws. Taking more from Sally in taxes, however, eliminates a higher percentage of her income, leaving her with a much more limited opportunity to make choices. This is, in essence, taking more of her freedom.

We need a simple tax system that takes 20% of active income from every citizen. No more deductions, penalties, or credits. Every American knows that $1 out of every $5 they earn is going to the federal government, and must budget accordingly.

Taking this a step further, the first $25,000 of income is not taxed. This means that when you receive your paycheck--if your salary is $25K or less--no taxes are withheld. The process of paying taxes only so that the government can return them to you is inefficient. Individuals making more than $25K could choose to amortize their payments over the course of the year or to begin paying 20% after they have earned their first $25K.

Think about how easy it would be to prepare a tax return. No deductions, no filing jointly, no dependents, no credits, no penalties--no loopholes. Everyone pays 20% of their active income over $25,000.

Imagine the one page, ten minute tax form that you could fill out during a coffee break. Instead of sending the government money at the end of the tax year or getting a refund, each citizen simply pays as they go. While it feels good to receive a refund at the end of the year, the fact is that all you are getting is money that was yours to begin with. This means that the government was holding your money all year. Banks have to pay interest to do that. Conversely, when individuals underpay, they are withholding money from the government. All of this breeds inefficiency and requires a larger IRS, opening the door for more mistakes, more loopholes, and more wasted money.

Let's stop squabbling over tax reform and demand an entirely new policy.

Failure to Comply

This entry continues the series exploring ideas for improvements to our federal tax system.

The previous entry touched on the immensity of the federal tax code. That it was 16,485 pages in March of 2006 (by now it is longer) is astonishing in and of itself, but it is not just its length that makes it so ridiculous.

The complexity of the code is the real issue. As noted in the previous entry, Americans spend $265 billion on compliance costs in 2005. Federal tax revenue was around $1.2 trillion. That means that 22% extra was spent on complying with the tax code. So the real cost of taxes is much higher than the number on a tax return.

It is not just business paying for the absurdly high compliance costs. As consumers and employees, businesses pass expenses along to us anyway--but individuals totaled 44% of the $265 billion spent on compliance in 2005. Stack on top of that an average of 25 hours spent working on compliance, and it is easy to see that the government should actually be paying us to determine what it costs to pay our taxes.

And it is not just inefficient for the taxpayers. The government wastes vast amounts of time and resources on compliance. But because tax codes are so complex and so vast, even Uncle Sam has a hard time getting it right.

Here's a true story to support my case. While it concerns state taxes, it demonstrates the absurdity of our tax laws. Last year, after sending my state tax return, I received a letter indicating that I owed another $42 in taxes. There was no explanation for this assessment, just a dollar figure and a date. Since I do my own taxes, I went back and reviewed my information, and checked it again with the tax software I used to compute taxes. According to my hand calculation and the software, I had paid the correct amount.

I decided to send a letter explaining why I believed I did not owe another $42 in taxes, and included copies of my federal and state returns. Several weeks later, I received another bill, this time for $43.71, because I now owed interest on my late payment. Thinking it best to cut my losses and pay the state, I sent my check for the full amount.

Two weeks later, the state must have finally figured out that my calculations were correct, because they sent me a check back for just over $44--the amount I paid plus the interest they owed me.

I would like to think that this is rare occurrence, but because my tax return was relatively uncomplicated, the only logical conclusion is that these things happen frequently.

So who benefits from this mess of a tax code? The wealthy lawyers and accountants who earn their living helping the rest of us comply with the system. Furthermore, the wealthiest Americans are able to take advantage of all the loopholes and end-up paying a lower percentage than middle-class Americans.

This must stop. Two people with the same income should pay the same in taxes. It should not be the better accountant or lawyer who determines what we owe the government. In this age of instant information, we ought to be able to look at a simple form a the end of the year, sign our name, and write our check or receive or refund. There should not be 40-plus page tax returns, forms with more abbreviations than anyone can remember, or huge governmental organizations spending millions of tax dollars on trying to figure out if each citizen is actually paying what they owe.

It is time to streamline the system and the process. The government benefits from the mystery of the tax code--most of us do not realize how or how much we actually pay--and it allows them to perpetuate the failing programs and offices that put more dollars into politicians' pockets.

Americans deserve a tax code that is simple, fair, logical, and requires the government to demonstrate fiscal restraint.

Taxation Nation

This entry is the first of a series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Nearly every activity of our day is taxed. Waking up to the alarm clock, turning on the light, and taking a shower all include utility taxes. Driving to work? Gasoline taxes are outrageous in some states. Settling into your desk chair at the office costs both you and your employer. On the way home from work, that stop at the grocery store probably costs you sales tax. Call your spouse to say you are running a bit late and add cell phone taxes to your day. Walk in the front door of your house and put your change in the piggy bank, because you are probably paying property tax. Renting? Your landlord is passing the cost of taxes along to you. And whether you watch CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ESPN, or Lifetime, you are paying taxes on your cable or satellite service. Even the money sitting in your savings account is being taxed.

There are so many taxes and so many tax laws that Americans have no idea how or how much they pay in taxes every day, and this is exactly how government wants it. In March of 2006, according the United States Government Printing Office (another drain on your income), the tax code totaled 16,845 pages. It is so long, and so exhaustive, that no one can truly grasp all of intricacies. Back in 1976, when the code was substantially shorter, President Jimmy Carter said, "Our income-tax system is a disgrace to the human race."

The Tax Foundation estimated the cost of compliance with the federal income tax system to be $265 billion in 2005. What this means is that, on top of the approximately $1.2 trillion in income tax businesses and individuals coughed-up, another 22% was spent on making sure we paid the proper amount. To put it another way, if the system garnered 30% of income in taxes, it cost another 22 cents on every dollar to pay them. That would mean that 52 cents of every buck earned in 2005 went towards the tax system.

And that is just for federal income taxes. Stack state, local, excise--all the other taxes on top--and Americans are paying the majority of their income in taxes and compliance costs.

President John F. Kennedy wanted to lower tax rates in order to increase tax revenues. Citing actual studies (a simple procedure our government usually fails to follow), JFK determined that lowering tax rates would bring about more growth, resulting in higher revenues within just a few years. Almost fifty years later, we still have not learned this lesson.

What it comes down to is this: Americans are paying over 40% of their income in taxes. This is ten percent higher than the rates in 1960. Republican or Democrat, both parties have increased the size of government since World War II. Stack another 20-plus percent on for compliance costs, and we are working from January until July just to pay for our tax burden.

But businesses pay a huge chunk of our taxes, right? Wrong. For businesses, taxes are just another expense. In order for businesses to survive, these expenses are passed along to employees, consumers, and shareholders. Taxing businesses is just another way for the government to tax you.

Fortunately, the solutions to this issue are uncomplicated and well-researched. All we need to do is simplify the tax code and cut tax rates. Unfortunately, we have to find politicians who are willing to embrace the common sense reasoning of taxes.

Best Practices

This entry is the final in the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

Politicians throw around the term "best practice" quite a bit. The idea is to find a program that works and adopt it as policy. It is really a business term, and refers to companies altering their methods--based on what their competitors or other businesses are doing--in order to increase efficiency.

For the federal government, this usually means taking a state or local program and making it a national program.

This is a disastrous concept to apply to education. While common sense ideas like raising teacher wages and constructing and rehabbing schools to meet modern standards should be applied across the board, specific education policies must be determined by states and districts.

The reason for this is very simple. Demographics have a huge impact on how children learn, and a California senator knows little about how a child in Detroit needs to be educated, while a Michigan congressman would struggle to understand the complexities of the immigrant culture in Los Angeles. "Best practices" are very different in Los Angeles and Detroit. Furthermore, localizing school policy would empower parents and teachers within districts, giving them a louder voice and an incentive to be more involved.

Is bilingual education a good idea? What about gender segregation? Should phonics be part of every grade school curriculum? The answer to all three of these questions is another question: What will work best for your district? If states really got smart, they could even design part of their education plans around their economies, supplying better employees for businesses and giving students a better chance at getting and holding jobs.

The federal government would be wise to spend their education budget in the following ways:

1) Increase teacher salary. Make the starting salary about 50% higher than it currently is (to about $45,000), and continue driving it up at a rate that outpaces inflation.

2) Build and maintain higher quality education facilities. Technology, buildings, books and supplies--all of these are essential to education.

3) Give states money for the express purpose of conducting concise, meaningful research in order to discover what the "best practices" are for their districts. It is time for some serious research to be conducted by the brightest minds in the field.

4) Cut nearly every other program included the federal education budget. Give the money to states, put the issue in their hands, and allow voters to impact education locally, where they can see the fruits of their labor.

Following these four guidelines--along with holding parents accountable for their children--will bring about better teachers, better schools, and better curriculum. And a tax increase would not be necessary to fund these simple programs.

Now, all that said, there is one subject that I firmly believe must be taught in every school: money. Simple classes, starting in grade school, that cover topics such as balance sheets, saving and investing, the impact of debt, the rewards of compound interest (and its dangers in credit cards), and retirement plans--all of this would help Americans out of bad debt and give each citizen the necessary knowledge to make decent financial decisions.

I am not so naive as to say that these classes will turn Americans into financial geniuses, but with a basic education on how money works our citizens would become more responsible for their finances and could be justifiably held accountable for their finances. As it stands now, the poor get poorer as they ring up debt and throw money away on rent while the wealthy get richer by purchasing more apartment complexes.

All of these ideas about improving education come back to the same principle of giving every citizen a chance to achieve success. Without a proper education, this will never be possible.

A Real Test of Achievement

This entry continues the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

We know that the federal government is wasting education funding (see previous entry). So how should the money be spent? What can we do to improve the quality of education in America?

To be honest, I am not completely sure. I am not an education expert. I have spent many years in outdoor education and several years as a coach--so I am an educator--but I do not work within the public school system.

But I am sure about a few changes that need to be made.

Every election cycle voters put education at or near the top of their priority list in the polls. We know, as a nation, that this is a critical issue. And when we hear politicians telling us how much they are spending on education, we assume that this money is helping the situation. In the last entry, this myth was debunked. Spending for the sake of spending does nothing but waste valuable taxpayer resources.

Teachers are the key to education. Sounds simple, right? But with all of the money we spend on education, teacher salaries are in comparative decline. In 1940, teacher pay was comparable to that of other professional careers. From 1996-2003, inflation-adjusted teacher pay rose 0.8%, while other college-educated professionals saw an inflation-adjusted 12% increase.

The average starting pay for a teacher is about $30,000. Computer programmers, accountants, and registered nurses start off at about $45,000. As bad as this statistic is, overall average pay is even worse. Teachers earn more than 50% less than their bachelor-degree holding counterparts in other professions.

Obviously, teaching is about more than money. But salaries are not just dollars, they are a measure of gratitude and achievement. Ask just about any employee, a raise is the best way to communicate appreciation. By paying them so little, we are telling teachers we are ungrateful for them. Not only this, but laws have stripped them of their ability to choose a curriculum, control their classrooms, and discipline their students.

We are failing this test. As a nation, we have sent a clear message that we do not value our teaching professionals. What incentive do they have to perform well, other than the kindness of their hearts?

A dramatic increase in teacher pay is one of the first steps to improving the education system. Let's stop wasting money on failing programs and start investing on our most important education resource--our teachers.

Educonomics

This entry continues the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

In order for the education system to improve, it will take more than just encouraging parents to be involved. There are some basic issues that must be addressed, that, when examined with an eye on basic laws of economics, make no sense.

It has become taboo for a lawmaker to even suggest cutting education spending. As noted in the last entry, "No Child Left Behind" has brought with it a 137% increase in federal education spending, and there is no clear evidence that the program is successful.

This should not be a surprise. A few years ago Professor Eric Hanushek, Chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Rochester, directed a comprehensive study of the relationship between funding and performance in education. The study found no correlation between spending and success.

In fact, states where per-pupil spending is less than half that of others consistently find themselves at the top of the list for test results.

That said, now would be a good time to note that I do not believe a standardized multiple choice exam is much of a measure of a child's education. Having worked in a college education department that earned a perfect score (one of only two colleges in that entire state to do so) from state accreditors, I can tell you that any cutting-edge education professional would agree that standardized tests have little to do with a child's education.

So why have we mired ourselves in laws that force teachers to spend their entire year teaching material on exams that do not really measure how well a child is learning? Because spending more and talking tough about testing and results sounds good to voters.

While the reason for this mess may not surprise you, it should sicken you. The undeniable truth is that the federal government has taken little interest in researching what programs actually work. In fact, serious studies for our nation's education programs either do not exist or suggest that the programs are under-performing. Remember the big debate about "Head Start" at the end of Clinton's administration? Funding was boosted for the program, even though the government's own GAO (General Accounting Office) warned that no study had been done to evaluate "Head Start."

Title I is another failed government experiment. Meant to improve achievement among low-income students, Title I is the major funding arm of "No Child Left Behind." But as the Center on Reinventing Public Education points out, the program has two major flaws: 1) the complexity and mismanagement of district allocation practices and accounting procedures make it difficult to determine where spending is going; 2) the law itself is easily side-stepped. The result? Title I is not improving education for low-income students. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this program--which was started more than forty years ago in 1965--is failing, and has always failed. And yet we not only continue the program, we boost its funding.

We are spending--in real dollars adjusted for inflation--nearly three times per-pupil what we were spending in 1965. Not only do we continue to fund failing programs, we reward them by boosting funding. It is an amazing fact that the federal government has failed to sit down with the best education minds in the country and determine, through research, what steps we should take to repair our most vital public function.

We do not just need education reform. We need an education revolution. We need to scrap nearly every federal program and re-examine the issue. We need to stop doing what sounds good, and do what works. And, as voters, we need to demand this change.

Account-Ability

This entry continues the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

A professor studying education methods visited a school in a southwest Los Angeles district. In one of the classrooms, a teacher worked with all but two of her students, who sat in the back of the classroom with their desks facing the wall. The two boys were talking to one another, completely disinterested with what was going on around them.

The professor asked the teacher about the two boys. She replied, "We made a deal. I let them do whatever they want in the back of the classroom as long as they don't disrupt the rest of the class." Dumbfounded, the professor pressed the teacher about her decision to give-up on two of her students. She went on to explain that, while she hated the idea of ignoring two young men in need of an education, they had been so disruptive that the choice was either to separate them from the rest of the group or sacrifice the needs of the entire class. "I don't have a choice," she said. "I hate that this how it has to be, but there's nothing else I can do."

This is a true story. Disruptive students can dominant and destroy a classroom atmosphere, and current laws give teachers little, if any, power to deal with these children. The idea is that the school system should be good enough to "fix" these kids and convince them that an education is in their best interest. The trouble is, if a teacher chooses to spend his or her time and energy trying to save these children, it is at the expense of the rest of the class.

For the most part, teachers are hard-working, committed individuals. They have to be. They have one of the most difficult--if not the most difficult--jobs in our society, and they receive very little compensation. They are willing to go the extra mile to help students and parents get the best education possible.

But they can do nothing for a child who is convinced that school is not important.

This attitude is partly cultural, but it comes from the home. Parents who take no direct interest in their children's education are the cause of this problem, and they must be held accountable for the solution.

In order for our children to effectively learn, they must have a quality learning environment. Unfortunately, it is very easy to disrupt this environment and throw it into chaos, and teachers have little authority to prevent this. Children who are not taught respect at home will not respect their teachers, and this takes valuable resources away from the rest of the class and the teacher.

I submit that parents of children who are failing classes--either for grades or for having a destructive influence on the classroom atmosphere--should be fined. And I'm not talking about a bill in the mail or a ticket on a windshield, I'm talking about garnishing wages or other income. If a child is a failing a class or causing other children to fail, then that child's parent is failing at home and stealing from taxpayers, children, and the country the precious gift of an education. I am simply proposing that these parents refund some of the resources they cost the rest of us.

The fact is that teachers go out of their way to make sure students pass their classes. The difficulty level of curriculum is at an all-time low, and yet failure rates are still extremely high. In a properly-functioning education system, classes should get more difficult every year and each generation should be smarter than the previous one.

I will admit, fining people sounds extreme. But is it? Parents who neglect to spend even an hour or two with their children each week helping with homework, reviewing exams, or explaining the importance of education are costing the rest of the country billions of dollars and immeasurable value in wasted young minds.

"I don't have time," is sure to be an excuse from many of these parents. This is ridiculous. Turn off American Idol. Wake-up from the nap. Get off of the internet. If a parent does not have enough time or energy to invest a few minutes everyday in their child's future, that parent ought to pay a little extra so someone else can try to save our nation's children from illiteracy. Teachers go out of their way to help students, talk with parents, and maintain order in the classroom. We cannot allow reckless parenting to sap our precious education resources and sabotage our children's future.

I am certain this policy would help turn around our schools. It helps give teachers some leverage in the classroom. It forces parents to take an interest in their child's education, or to pay the schools enough to put their child in a special needs class so as to allow the other students an opportunity for a quality education. And it makes a clear statement that our children are more important than anything else--including our paychecks. It is sad that it has come to this point, but it is time to make a change.

Better education will not come from a politician's new plan. Instead of voting for a candidate to fix the system, it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the problem. Bad parenting costs the rest of us. It is time to recognize that government cannot solve the problem. It is time to hold ourselves accountable. It is time we lived our vote.

Parentally Challenged

This entry is the first of a series exploring solutions to the education crisis America faces.

What is our country's greatest resource? America is blessed with multitudinous natural riches, but history has shown that our people make us the greatest nation in the world. Our children, then, are our most important resource, as they determine the future of America's prosperity and success. It is time we focused squarely on this issue.

What sounds right and what is right are two very different things. Most of us would agree that a plan to send food to refugees of a civil war in Africa is a good idea, and it certainly sounds nice. But what if the food never reaches the refugees? What if the shipments are being intercepted and used as currency by the warlords to purchase more weapons and, ultimately, kill more people? What if the charity is actually part of the problem? Sadly, we know that this has happened on many occasions. It does not mean that sending food is a bad idea, it just means that it must be done wisely.

What does this have to do with education? Well, the next several entries discuss some very difficult topics and offer some very difficult solutions. Much of it may not sound good or fair, but I believe it is right for our country and its citizens.

Education spending has surged since the enactment of "No Child Left Behind." According to the Heritage Foundation, the bill is responsible for the 137% increase from 2001-2006. We are spending more on education than ever before, and we are achieving less. This is one of those cases where it sounds nice to say, "we need to spend more on education," but the reality is that spending does not equal results.

If we expect to see an improvement in our education program, the most important issue to address is that of parental involvement. The most powerful influence in a child's education is not at school, it's at home. Children whose parents are directly involved with their education do better in school and have a much greater chance at success in life.

What this means is that--no matter how much is spent on education and no matter how it is spent--without good parenting our children cannot succeed in school, and our country is doomed to fail along them.

One of my good friends and his wife are both teachers. While visiting with them recently, they both recounted several stories about the lack of parental involvement and how it impacts their students and schools. While this anecdotal evidence comes as no surprise considering the vast amounts of research that prove parental involvement is vital to a quality education, it is still shocking. Parents who were contacted because their children are failing classes are asked to come in and meet with the teachers. Many times, after scheduling a meeting, the parents do not show-up for it. What's worse, they do not call to say they are not coming or reschedule. They simply do not care enough.

Parents asked to spend a single hour helping their struggling children study on a weekend repeatedly fail to do so. It is no surprise that many children come to school not caring about their own education, because this attitude is merely a reflection of the atmosphere in their home.

It is preposterous to think that schools will do all the work of educating our children. Yet the same parents who do not show-up for meetings or help their children with their homework complain that "our schools are failing us" and often call superintendents and principals when their kids are held back or receive failing grades in their classes. They have enough energy to berate our teachers and educators but not the courage or strength to help their children succeed.

These people are wasting our most precious resource. Our children are being sacrificed by their own parents.

There is a solution. Many parents--and somewhat justifiably so--argue that they simply do not have time to help their children. While this is nothing more than an excuse, it is reflective of the fact that our government has made it very difficult for families to survive on a single income. Many of the problems facing America today are interconnected, and I will continue to discuss these connections throughout the blog. That said, there is nothing more important than our children, and we must put them first.

How do we force good parenting? How can we legislate parental involvement? It costs us billions and billions of wasted dollars in time, energy, and resources every year to try to save children from a poor education. I believe it is time we passed these costs directly onto those that are responsible for them. The next entry will discuss this concept.

Teaching Fairness

When I first decided to write this blog, I thought I needed to tackle the issue of taxation first. But as I consider the goal of finding the best ways to achieve the maximum in freedom and opportunity for America and Americans, something else jumps out at me.

Education is perhaps the most important component of providing citizens with an equal opportunity for success. In many cases, I believe privatization is essential to encourage efficiency. Without competition for its services, government can afford to be wasteful--and often is.

But public education is the only way to maintain freedom. Why? Because privatization will lead to the wealthy getting the best education. This is not just a problem because it is unfair. It is also a threat to freedom.

It is important for me to note that I am not against private schools, but I firmly believe that each taxpayer should contribute his or her fair share to the public education system.

The catalyst for nearly every revolution in history has been a large and widening rich-poor gap. When the poor are getting poorer and the socio-economic conditions seem to make upward mobility impossible, governments are in danger of losing control of their citizens.

When the poor no longer believe they have the opportunity for success, they lose hope. This leads to higher crime rates, a cyclical culture of poverty, and, eventually, revolution.

While the lower-class may always be at a disadvantage, a quality education helps level the field. America will be at its best when its citizens believe that the hardest-working, most creative individuals find success, regardless of their background.

In order for our public schools to begin meeting the demands of the nationwide and worldwide economy, many drastic changes are required. Better teachers, better schools, better supplies--these are all necessary elements of an improved education program, but the most vital ingredient may be positive parental involvement.

The next several entries in this blog will explore this issue and other solutions to our education crisis.

Equal Opportunity

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's a phrase we all know well. But what does it mean? How should we define freedom and equality in the United States?

After several posts that attempt to identify some of the problems with our political culture, it's time to turn the focus towards issues and solution-oriented thinking.

Several issues will be tackled in this blog. Topics such as abortion, taxation, education, and foreign policy will all be discussed in an honest, open-ended manner. But it is important to always keep in mind how each of these issues relates to the greater goal of achieving the maximum amount of freedom and success for America and Americans.

With great freedom comes great responsibility. One of the central concepts to the solutions proposed on this blog is the idea of accountability. Freedom cannot succeed without individuals taking responsibility for their actions.

Living in America does not equal the right to success. It does not mean that every citizen deserves their own house, drugs, playstation, computer, alcohol, or even job. What America does try to guarantee is that every individual--regardless of race background, gender, etc.--has the opportunity to express their freedom in any way they so chose that does not take freedom away from another citizen. The focus is on opportunity, not on outcome.

Right now, I believe our government is keeping us from opportunity. I believe our laws and our system makes it more difficult than it should be to raise a family, enjoy an income, plan for retirement, help one another, and pursue leisure activities. As this blog continues, each policy idea will contain elements that I believe will contribute to a greater opportunity for success, and will therefore demand a greater sense of responsibility to self, country, fellow citizens, and the world.

Spending Freedom

The elder George Bush enjoyed the highest approval rating in history in 1991, with some polls posting a staggering 89%. Everyone, it seemed, in the public and the press, was convinced that he would enjoy another four years in office without even leaving the White House to campaign.

By July, 1992, his approval rating was at 32%--the lowest in history at the time. What caused the free-fall? More than any other factor, a poor economic situation doomed his presidency and provided an opportunistic underdog (Bill Clinton) with the chance he needed to become the nation's 42nd president.

This trend is evident throughout our nation's history, and has become even more pronounced as economic indicators have become increasingly available with nearly up-to-the-second accuracy via today's world wide media. The perception is that our politicians--especially the President--have a huge impact on our economy.

But is this true? Do the President and the United States Congress really have control of our economy?

While laws and policy will always have some effect on the economy, the root of success in America is ingenuity. Intellectual property becomes increasingly valuable as a nation approaches her industrial capacity. At this point in our economic history, the United States has bested the greatest challenges of production and can now turn almost any good idea into a profitable business.

This is not to say that industry and production are no longer relevant. Market prices for essential resources will always impact business. Oil, gas, timber, steel, beef, produce...all of these remain essential components of a healthy economy. When prices for these resources fluctuate, the economy will react. And, while the government can help moderate these fluctuations, it cannot control OPEC, the emerald ash borer, overseas steel production, mad cow disease, and insect infestation. These are real economic makers and breakers, and they have little to do with the President and Congress.

It can be truly said that the chairperson of the Federal Reserve Board has a greater impact on our current economy than the President or Congress. If Clinton was such an economic genius, as many propose, why did we experience a recession in 1998? If Bush is such an economic dolt, as many suggest, why has he overseen rapid economic growth?

The worst aspect of the perceived relationship between incumbents and economy is the negative effect it has on long-term growth. Because the relationship between the unemployment rate and elections is so strong, incumbents implement policies that are focused on short-term growth to try to boost the economy right before elections. This sacrifices long-term growth and has a damaging overall effect on natural supply and demand.

We are wasting our time and money--and our freedom--when we vote for our pocketbooks.